Slashdot Mirror
Respond To The Tunney Act
Jeremy White writes "Two nights ago, I was discussing the Microsoft Antitrust trial,
and the comment period required by the Tunney Act, with someone
who cares as deeply about this case as I do. The person
I was talking to had an inside connection that knew the tally
and basic shape of the comments actually being sent in about
this case. I learned that
it's time to stop procrastinating, or Microsoft buys this one."
Looking at Dan Kegel's letter the one thing that's striking me about this issue is...
Microsoft is global company causing global problems not just to the development process inside the US but outside it as well - especially as alot of open source projects have a wide range of international contributors, but as things stand only US points of view can be submitted to the courts.
While I agree that as this case is being brought in the US weighting ought to be given to US residents as this affects everyone people outside the US ought to have some scope to feed comments into the process. I know the EU is looking at (or are they still?) bringing its own case against MS but again this only will take account of EU concerns.
For matters of this nature which are truely global a global perspective needs to be presented.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
I sent this email from my Hotmail.com account ;)
How hard was that? It does specifically what Mr. White asks, which is to submit a vote against the current settlement. It took 5 minutes. Heck, it took longer to write this comment than that.
-- Dan
Do it like this.
Open a new topic: Send Your Comments On The M$ Antitrust Trial
Allow the normal Slashdot moderation process to weed out the bullshit.
Deliver all the 3 to 5 comments to the judge "in personam" printed out on paper.
Use the power of this constituency, its literacy, eloquence and intelligence to make a difference.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
and send an anti-Microsoft/DoJ settlement email to the DoJ. You don't have to be articulate or even polite. Numbers count here, sending just "NO to Microsoft" is enough.
And register it will. By law, all public comments submitted must be published in the Federal Register. And the judge in the case will read them, each and every one. Come on, get off your ass! What's two minutes cost for inscribing your opinion in governmental granite for all posterity? Send all those bastardos up in Redmond a real message!
Given the relatively large number of registered users to this site, I'm sure that this story could conceivably affect the net number of comments. I wonder, however, if the effect will actually be in the intended direction of the story's submitter...
Hundreds? Thousands? Do you have a source for these wacky statistics?
And decades? I realize Microsoft has been around for a couple decades, but how many companies was Microsoft putting out of business in, say, 1985?
I noticed, in reviewing the reference materials, that under the proposed settlement, Microsoft gets to keep secret (no obligation to publish or document) anything having to do with security. As soon as I saw that, the recent Gates memo "redirecting" corporate efforts made more sense -- Bill's just herding the troops into a safe harbor sanctioned by the settlement, so they will not need to change their basic practices.
This happened last time when the government requested comments on patents. Slashdot posted it and how many responses were there? Something like 5. I think there are more than 5 slashdot readers. Here is what I sent them below, at least cut and paste it or someone elses to show you have a vote against Microsoft:
----
The current proposal for the Microsoft settlement will not prevent Microsoft from staying a monopoly in the computer industry. Microsoft employees are spreading this around as "..a victory over the government." If the government shows they are incapable or unwilling to stop Microsofts monopoly over the software industry, who else is there to stand in Microsofts way?
Since the trial has started Microsofts grip on ISP's and hardware vendors has slowly loosend up for fear of how it would be represented in the case against them. Once Microsoft accepts the current settlement they will go back to their previous methods of forcing the industry to accept their software and force out competitors, but it is not their previous methods the software industry is only worried about. By recieving the current settlement this will show the industry that even the government and it's laws cannot stop Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft will be able to expand their practices beyond strict EULA's, enforcing proprietary "standards" and harrassing/buying out small companies. They will be able to stretch more laws, find more loopholes and choose more "un-ethical" business means knowing that the most powerful system that could have stopped them was not powerful enough.
Once again I say that the DOJ and US government should be putting a stop to Microsofts monopoly. By forcing them to release their file formats, source code, protocols or something similar that will allow other companies to compete with them. But the current settlement simply shows that the government no longer has the power to enforce the laws that control our capitalist country.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Yet another letter...
I am against the proposed final judgment in US vs. Microsoft. I feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little to correct it. I don't feel the settlement levels the playing field for competing operating systems or office software, and would like to see a much stronger penalty imposed. The proposed settlement does not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to leverage hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against competing products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to programmers.
<name>
<location>
You rail on about the injustices of Microsoft, yet when you have an opportunity to do something about it, the majority of you sit around with your collective finger up your ass and don't do a damn thing.
You either have the strength of your convictions, or you don't. And the majority of you don't. It's just fun to join in the anti-Microsoft mob.
The so called predatory business pratices are also crap, I think about expanding my own business along the ideas in the "Halloween Document" all the time. The only reason MS got shafted for it was their market position.
That is correct. There are things you can do when you're a small business that you can not do when you are a monopoly.
Why?
Because the monopoly already has a substantial advantage and if they were allowed to use that substantial advantage as they saw fit, competitors wouldn't stand a chance.
Remember: It's not illegal to have a monopoly. Getting there is a good sign that you're doing something right. It's illegal to maintain a monopoly through things like predatory pricing ("dumping") and other means. You can not exploit your already enormous advantage to keep other companies out of the running.
Since I can still get 7 more Karma points, I decided to post my letter. Anyone who likes it is free to use parts of it in theirs.
=====
To whomever this concerns,
I understand that I have the ability to comment on the proposed settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft.
I have been using computers daily since the mid-eighties, when my father brought home an early portable IBM computer. I hope to earn my livelihood by working in the computing industry. Consequently, this issue is centrally relevant to my life.
It is widely believed by those familiar with the case that the proposed settlement is completely inadequate. It will do little to punish Microsoft for it's plainly illegal conduct in the past, and virtually nothing whatsoever to prevent future violations of antitrust law. As a consumer, it infuriates me to be forced to pay for increasingly expensive software that diminishes in quality with each release. I applauded the Clinton administration's investigation of Microsoft. Their case was an effort to protect consumers and promote economic growth by restoring fairness and competition to the computer industry. Now that the DOJ is under new management, it has essentially abandoned it's pursuit of Microsoft, suggesting that the DOJ no longer has any concern for either economic growth or the public good.
The United States is a successful nation because its free markets encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-quality, low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from monopolists who gain so much power that they can destroy the competitive nature of the markets in which they participate.
I urge all parties involved to reconsider the proposed settlement. Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for it's destructive abuse of it's monopoly power. More importantly, American consumers need to be protected against future abuses.
Thank you for your time,
Stephen C. VanDahm
Spartanburg, SC.
Hi,
I am a US Citizen and I feel that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust
case will do nothing to change the monopolistic practices of Microsoft.
Any settlement which does not severly restrict Microsoft from simultanious operation
in the OS and Internet, and Applications market will do little to create a fair open
computer software arena in which competitors have a chance.
I recently upgraded a computer from Windows 95 to Windows XP. Windows XP is an
advertising platform for additional generally unrelated Microsoft products and services.
As a specific example the "Passport" advertizement is a carefully worded almost lie.
When you attempt to connect to the internet the XP system prompts you popping up a
window saying that you MUST have a passport to browse the internet. This is untrue and
the average user will be unable to distinguish between the actual wording that says
you MUST have a passport for the use of MICROSOFT services the the wording I used above.
There are numerious other advertising features embeded in XP which present Microsoft
products and services as the necessary for use of the OS or Internet. These presentations are unfair and continue to bolster Microsofts monopolistic position in the software market.
John Roll
Computer Software Engineer
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
john@cfa.harvard.edu
This is what is meant by "paying people to send email"? If a Red Hat employee sends an email to the DOJ, is Red Hat "paying people to send email"? If an AOL employee sends email to the DOJ, is AOL "paying people to send email"? If a Sun employee sends email to the DOJ, is Sun "paying people to send email"? etc. etc.
If this is the case, Microsoft is certainly the underdog in this competition (there are far more non-Microsoft employees than Microsoft employees who are getting paid to send email). Hence there is little need for the histrionic victimology ("we need to stand up and fight back ... lets at least try to compete").
I would like to register my objection to the proposed settlement in the United States vs. Microsoft case.
The biggest problem I see is that the settlement is not a structural remedy. Oversight remedies have been tried against Microsoft in the past, and they have coded arounded them, lobbied over them, and legally maneuvered past them every time. The only thing that hasn't been tried yet, and that has a hope of working, is to break them up.
Breaking Microsoft up into OS/Applications/Other divisions wouldn't break their monopoly, but it would make it more difficult for them to use their OS monopoly to create new monopolies in other areas, which they are doing with Windows XP even as I type this.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Ya see, this argument isn't about giving all products a fair opportunity for success. This is, to use your Affirmative Action argument, about demanding that Microsoft give up a share of its success to others who have not necessarily earned it.
The point is that Microsoft didn't earn its success; it cheated to get it. Its not fair to cheat to get ahead, and then claim that everybody has to play fair.
appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars
There's a 95 % chance you're going to read through all of these comments and then never get around to writing anything. You know this and I know this. Have more respect for yourself than just sitting there and preaching to the choir.
Oh, and if you're sitting there modding people's posts up and down without having submitted your own opinion, what gives yourlazy ass the right to judge the opinions of someone who actually has an opinion and the motivation to say something meaningful about their opinions to someone who can do something about it?
Yes, I'm going to piss off 95% of the slashdot crowd, including 95% of the moderators, but I've got karma to burn, especially for a good cause. (Say what you will about burning karma on a loosing battle.)
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
I work for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and when the public is invited to send comments they are merely counted.
In fact, at the Fed, no-one even cares, because the comments won't make a lick of difference.
But hey, it might be different with the DOJ. FWIW, I sent my own comments and I hope like hell it can help to make a difference.
JLucien.
Audere est Facere
I fear the Microsoft antitrust trial is deeply misunderstood, by the prosecution and the public at large. The consequences could be dire if a settlement is reached too early and in Microsoft's favor.
This case has a lot in common with the trials of the railroad monopolies. By their end, public infrastructure in the form of superhighways and was at hand. People no longer depended on the railroads as the only means of transportation cross country, and federally funded interstate roads provided an alternative to moving people and goods only by tracks. The introduction and assistance of cross country roads from the government helped resist the price fixing from the railroads and gave people a choice. Ultimately that choice resulted in heightened interstatecommerce and heavy population of the west coast of the United States.
Like the railroad companies, closed source operating system companies will always gravitate towards monopolistic unified control. This is in part because of the difficulty of building a new operating system infrastructure (building a new set of cross country tracks) and partially because it lowers the parent companies costs. Any remedy must be ongoing until the United States congress sees fit to address the cost of building, obtaining, or securing a open source software infrastructure.
Any assistance from the government helps drive back the very real market force of fear of obsolescence, which helps repair the psychological damage caused by previous competition being wholly futile. Compare the argument, "why should I buy a car when there are plenty of trains and there are no roads" to the modern application obsolescence quandary, "Why should I buy an operating system when there are no applications, and Windows is free?" (Windows is not free, but that is the public perception).
Like moving goods, only when people can choose to manipulate information in the fashion which proves most efficient for them will the free market flourish. At the least, Microsoft license terms and prices must be predictable and uniform for however long it takes for a federal infrastructure to be made readily available for use by Americans. Then the market can choose once again.
Thank you for your time.
Matthew Newhall
President of LILUG
Long Island Linux Users Group
president@slashdotified.lilug.org
http://lilug.org
My physical address
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
No, read this article and this one on osOpion.
The allegations? Microsoft not only sabotaged other companies programs, but also copied and embedded other companies code (DoubleSpace, from STAC--MSFT was found liable, btw).
Despite the rationalizations of /.'ers, stealing is a crime. MSFT stole code (and committed other crimes). (Also, from the 2nd article: MSFT didn't create a DOS, it bought one for $15k).
As to your point about sounding like a 7 year old: Our society is based on rules (ie, laws) and continues because people rely on most of those rules to be followed most of the time. Yes, that explanation leaves out some of the finer details (like, of crime and rule bending), but what would a /. post be without a generalization?
-MD
[Not any better than the others here, but it's yet another example for those who are seeking one....]
... Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source License (SCSL); ..."
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. As a scientist, I spend much of my time developing data analysis software for multiple platforms, including both UNIX and Microsoft Windows Operating Systems. My work is thus directly affected by the current proceedings, and I am concerned that a judgment be reached which is in the best interests of myself and other science and technology professionals.
I am particularly concerned that the Proposed Final Judgment does not adequately address the problem of Independent Software Vendors who ship Open Source applications. The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA, for instance, states in part that
"...you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models
This and other similar EULAs severely limit the potential for software makers to build Open Source software which is compatible with, or which makes legitimate use of, Microsoft tools. Since scientific software is often "Publicly Available" as per the above definition -- in keeping with the duty of scientists (especially those with public funding) to make their work available to American government, business, and academic institutions -- it follows that such behaviors on the part of Microsoft serve to impair the ability of the scientific community to meet its public responsibilities. Given the finding of fact that Microsoft holds a monopoly on Intel-compatible PC operating systems, it is espectially important to guarantee that Microsoft will not be able to use its monopoly power to control Independent Software Vendors. The Proposed Final Judgment does not succeed in accomplishing this.
The United States Department of Justice was in the right to take action against Microsoft initially, and -- as a taxpayer -- I certainly hope they will see that justice is served. The Proposed Final Judgment, however, is insufficiently strong to prevent the abuses which resulted in the initial action, much less the potentially actionable practices already proposed by Microsoft in the coming years. A strong judgment, possibly including the breakup of Microsoft, is the only viable means of restoring the benefits of free competition to the American software industry.
22 January, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Ms. Hesse,
I am writing to add my name to the list of people opposed to the Proposed Final Judgement in the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case.
As a software developer with 11 years of business experience, I have watched Microsoft's rise to dominance in several markets and been dismayed by many of the techniques it has used to attain and maintain dominance at the expense of other companies, competing software platforms and consumers such as myself. Still, while I have often found Microsoft's techniques distasteful and unethical, I am far less concerned about remedies for its past behavior than I am about ensuring that the same types of behavior are prevented in the future.
From my reading of the Proposed Judgement those remedies that actually work against Microsoft would be ineffective against a company determined to bypass them and would not even constitute significant obstacles in that bypassing process, further in many cases the remedies and definitions seem to have been specifically crafted to make them effectively nonexistent or to actually strengthen Microsoft's position in current or potential future markets. That Microsoft will work to bypass the original intent of the Judgement is clear for both technical and business practices - even during the course of the trial and settlement negotiations it continued to use tactics that should be blocked by a solid agreement.
As an example, the future direction of Microsoft's focus has just this month been declared to be security, while under the Proposed Judgement anything related to security need not be disclosed even if such would otherwise be mandatory. Under a strict reading, if Microsoft adds even rudimentary security interfaces to its APIs then none of those APIs need be disclosed and there is no penalty for not disclosing them -a requirement for receiving documentation for those APIs is that any business needing it must meet Microsoft-developed standards of business viability; non-businesses need not apply at all because access will simply not be available.
Overall, I feel that the Proposed Final Judgement is deeply flawed and should be substantially revised to remove these flaws before being accepted. A software and content monoculture such as Microsoft clearly wishes to have in place harms all of us in the long term, including Microsoft and its investors.
Sincerely,
Alan J. Miller
Des Plaines, IL
fencepost
just a little off